Separation gone too far - the making of a secular state

[Lon]

You mean rexlunae? He makes a good point. That really is the aim of the more fundamentalist Christians of whatever denomination, but they dance around it. Better to just be honest and come right out and say it.

But this is my thread and not my particular point.

And BTW, Lon, I'm not here to meet, fall short of, or exceed your expectations.

I thought friendships led to trying not to let the other down?

 

[Lon]

You wanna stand on my street and pray to Jesus, Budda, Satan, whoever, I don't care. Where we have a problem is when you expect me to participate. In the space of a few sentences, we witnessed Lon try to introduce a tiny bit of his faith into my life and then grow it by a significant increment. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that he would do more of that if he had the chance.

Again, more your fear and accusation, than actual. You read and read too much into your own fears and blind assertions.

 

[annabenedetti]

But this is my thread and not my particular point.

I was originally answering rexlunae's point, which is germane to the OP, and I notice you don't refute the point itself, and you didn't in your response to rex either. You're skirting it, which was exactly my earlier observation.

 

[patrick jane]

Recent attacks on Catholics -

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/c...nappropriate-grilling-of-judicial-nominee-abo

 

[annabenedetti]

Recent attacks on Catholics -

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/c...nappropriate-grilling-of-judicial-nominee-abo

Thanks for the link, it was interesting, and I think I found the paper on Catholic judges referenced in it, which is also interesting. I can see why Feinstein is pressing the issue. Agree or not, pro-life or not, Barrett does present the possibility of a conflict between faith and law such that a recusal might be necessary at some point.

From her paper,

Catholic Judges in Capital Cases


Our final observation about the first point is that many judges-even some who would regard themselves as orthodox Catholics-when faced with a conflict between moral and legal duties, see themselves as bound to enforce the law. Part of the explanation for this is that the moral-legal distinction is not as clear as we might wish. As Robert Cover put it, "the moral-[legal] decision [is actually] a moral-moral decision - a decision between the substantive moral propositions relating to [life and the death penalty] and the moral ends served by the [legal] structure asa whole, by fidelity to it."' 68 There is a significant moral dimension to the legal structure created by our constitution. That system empowers Congress to define our corporate objectives, directs judges to enforce them, and sets limits on the power of judges to change our course. It would betray a public trust and undermine this system if judges who flatly opposed capital punishment were to cheat - to take charge of sentencing hearings and manipulate the law and evidence in order to save lives. Some judges see a positive as well as a negative side to this role responsibility - a duty to do one's job, not just to refrain from undercutting it. This is the position Governor Mario Cuomo took in defending his decision to allow abortion in the state of New York.

[T]he Catholic who holds political office in a pluralistic democ-racy... bears special responsibility. He or she undertakes tohelp create conditions under which all can live with a maximumof dignity and with a reasonable degree of freedom; where eve-ryone who chooses may hold beliefs different from specificallyCatholic ones, sometimes contradictory to them[.]

In fact, Catholic public officials take an oath to preserve the Constitution that guarantees this freedom.... [T]o assure our freedom we must allow others the same freedom, even if occasionally it produces conduct... which we would hold to be sinful.

​

Justice Brennan took a similar position during his confirmation hearings in 1957, when he was asked whether he could abide by his oath in cases where "matters of faith and morals" got mixed with "matters of law andjustice." He said:

Senator, [I took my] oath just as unreservedly as I know you did... And...there isn't any obligation of our faith superior to that. [In my service on the Court] what shall control me is the oath that I took to support the Constitution and laws of the United States and [I shall] so act upon the cases that come before me for decision that it is that oath and that alone which governs. ​

We do not defend this position as the proper response for a Catholic judge to take with respect to abortion or the death penalty. We mention it here for a different reason. The question in a disqualification motion under § 455(a) is whether a reasonable observer would expect a Catholic judge, simply by virtue of membership in the Catholic Church, to be unalterably opposed to capital punishment. It is a sociological observation, not a moral conclusion. And as a sociological observation about judges who are Catholics it is, for the reasons we have noted, unfortunately inaccurate.

 

[rexlunae]

Again, more your fear and accusation, than actual. You read and read too much into your own fears and blind assertions.

And yet, you don't even bother to deny what I suggested was your agenda.

I'm not leaving my rights in your pious hands.

 

[patrick jane]

And yet, you don't even bother to deny what I suggested was your agenda.

I'm not leaving my rights in your pious hands.

2 Timothy 1:8 KJV -

2 Timothy 2:3 KJV -

 

[exminister]

They leave off "may not prohibit the free exercise thereof. " people are afraid of being sued, so they cave.

Money is their God (governments)

I would love to live in a theocracy/all christian community

Which Theocracy should it be?
Catholic
Jehovah Witnesses
Mormon
Pentecostal
Seventh Day Adventist
Assembly of God
?

If it goes there somebody has to win. History of Europe. Glory days for Catholics til them pesky Protestants showed up.

 

[Jose Fly]

Again, we are seeing a difference between coercion and expression.

While his refusal was political as far as disregarding the directive, it wasn't for proselytizing. That's the difference here. He was, as he says, just genuinely grateful.

Some students happened to ask the coach what he was doing. He said 'silently giving thanks for you kids, health, and a good game.' End of that story. You nor TH can find anything about promoting religion from that.

You and TH must have different news sources than I do.

That's why I wonder what source you and TH are reading. From what I've been reading, it is exactly that.

As I said, I don't know what other sources you two are reading, but I've seen nothing BUT accusation, not actuals regarding the matter which is why there are counter suits.

Again, all I have read, he was against the accusation. It took a player asking "what are you doing?" He basically said "my constitutional right, as is yours to do as you like." So the kid and others, exercised 'their' constitutional right. That is as far as I've gotten and have seen no information contrawise. I saw the ruling, but as I said, it was based on a fear, rather than an actuality. Were the Satanists asked to leave the stadium?

I've linked now three times. You? :nono: I've no idea, other than your imagination so far, where you are getting your information from
Could it be the same place the 3 judges got theirs???

Let's be clear on the facts of the case.

Coach Kennedy is an employee of the Bremerton Public School District. Immediately after football games were over he went out to the middle of the football field, knelt, and audibly prayed in full view of his players and while wearing school-logoed clothing. Some players joined him in the prayer. Kennedy also gave "motivational speeches" to students, players, and coaches at midfield after games. Those speeches included religious prayers and messages. The school also learned that Kennedy had been leading students in locker room prayers before and after games as well. When the district learned of these activities they directed him to cease. He stopped for a few weeks, but eventually he wrote a letter to the District requesting that he be allowed to resume his 50 yard line prayer. Two days later, before the District had responded, Kennedy resumed his 50 yard line prayer and was joined by students and faculty.

Soon thereafter, the District sent Kennedy a letter in which they reiterated their policy and emphasized that under the terms of his employment, he remained in his paid capacity as football coach until all players had been released to their parents or otherwise allowed to leave. From that basis, they informed Kennedy that when he conducted his 50 yard line prayer, he was still on duty for the District, under the lights, on school property, in school attire, and was still responsible for the players. The school offered to provide a private location on school grounds where Kennedy could pray after games and even said he could pray at the 50 yard line after everyone had left the stadium.

Kennedy responded by going to the media and declaring that he would only accept being allowed to pray at the 50 yard line immediately after games. Then he did so at the next two games.

The District then placed Kennedy on administrative leave. No players or school employees prayed at mid-field after the ensuing games.

At the end of the year, Kennedy declined to participate in his end-of-year performance review. The athletic director then recommended that Kennedy not be re-hired (coaches are under one year contracts) because he had consistently violated policy, and had failed to supervise players after games because he was instead focused on his interactions with the media.

Kennedy's contract was not renewed and he did not re-apply for his job.

Do you dispute any of that?

No, the WA RCWs actually encourage such instruction as and if it falls among the curriculum.

Citation please.

Not true. You are saying it isn't good (It is). The law should never protect those who simply disagree with you 'because they are offended.'

You're not making sense. You stated that there is value in diversity and I said no one has argued otherwise. So your replay above makes no sense in that context.

He had previously done it for seven years. Nobody even noticed. He never invited a kid out there. So, he was not proselytizing.

That's a ridiculous argument. If I speed through school zones for years and when I get caught I say to the officer "I've been doing this for years", what do you think his response will be?

or acting like it?

How does one "act like" God doesn't exist?

By your accusation?

By the decision of the school district and every court that has heard the case.

"If" it is found that it is, or was, I'll be on page with you.

By who?

The lawyers said it never was for that and that it was simply a silent expression of his faith. Until proven otherwise, we are ALL innocent until proven guilty and so I think there is a good possibility he will win this countersuit.

Are you not aware that this has been heard in court and every court that has heard it has ruled in favor of the school district? A counter suit won't overturn those rulings.

No, I'm simply saying we don't need to stop being who we are. A secular version of myself is NOT myself.

But earlier you explained how you were able to teach without ever making a deliberate public display of your faith to your students.

Right, else there is a 'gray' area and that is the area that tends to trounce on individual's rights.

Again, public employees do not have absolute universal rights to practice religion while at work.

Read the other side, the countersuit.

I can't seem to find it. Do you have a link?

Somehow, what we are doing, isn't stopping kids from killing kids. I don't think rehanging the Ten Commandments on the wall would stop it but we still should be trying to promote good by quotes and sentiments. If Gandhi says something good about non-violent activism, we should hang it up. We have too many 'take it down!' and not enough 'put that up! :up: ' Maybe here too, we are on page. -Lon

I don't subscribe to the simplistic notion that school shootings have anything to do with school officials not being allowed to push religion on to students.

 

[Lon]

And yet, you don't even bother to deny what I suggested was your agenda.

I'm not leaving my rights in your pious hands.

I was originally answering rexlunae's point, which is germane to the OP, and I notice you don't refute the point itself, and you didn't in your response to rex either. You're skirting it, which was exactly my earlier observation.

And, just like him, you aren't correct. I don't put out fires other people start and have no compulsion to do so. My 'silence' is no admission of guilt but a desire to have substantial discussion. Whims and accusatory are hardly my fascination or inclination. Simply saying 'no' is enough for me, even if it doesn't suffice for you or another. You can make up whatever is in your mind after that OR you could ask :think: Simply accusing isn't my bag (again, I expect[ed] better). :e4e: -Lon

 

[Lon]

Let's be clear on the facts of the case.

Coach Kennedy is an employee of the Bremerton Public School District. Immediately after football games were over he went out to the middle of the football field, knelt, and audibly prayed in full view of his players and while wearing school-logoed clothing. Some players joined him in the prayer. Kennedy also gave "motivational speeches" to students, players, and coaches at midfield after games. Those speeches included religious prayers and messages. The school also learned that Kennedy had been leading students in locker room prayers before and after games as well. When the district learned of these activities they directed him to cease. He stopped for a few weeks, but eventually he wrote a letter to the District requesting that he be allowed to resume his 50 yard line prayer. Two days later, before the District had responded, Kennedy resumed his 50 yard line prayer and was joined by students and faculty.

Soon thereafter, the District sent Kennedy a letter in which they reiterated their policy and emphasized that under the terms of his employment, he remained in his paid capacity as football coach until all players had been released to their parents or otherwise allowed to leave. From that basis, they informed Kennedy that when he conducted his 50 yard line prayer, he was still on duty for the District, under the lights, on school property, in school attire, and was still responsible for the players. The school offered to provide a private location on school grounds where Kennedy could pray after games and even said he could pray at the 50 yard line after everyone had left the stadium.

Kennedy responded by going to the media and declaring that he would only accept being allowed to pray at the 50 yard line immediately after games. Then he did so at the next two games.

The District then placed Kennedy on administrative leave. No players or school employees prayed at mid-field after the ensuing games.

At the end of the year, Kennedy declined to participate in his end-of-year performance review. The athletic director then recommended that Kennedy not be re-hired (coaches are under one year contracts) because he had consistently violated policy, and had failed to supervise players after games because he was instead focused on his interactions with the media.

Kennedy's contract was not renewed and he did not re-apply for his job.

Do you dispute any of that?

If such is the case, I'm in agreement with the district. Can you cite the information please? and thank you.

Citation please.

I listed such as well as one of his interviews (linked if you click as I think a youtube discussion with the coach).
It'll be interesting to see the facts come out in the counter suit. I've based this thread on the countersuit information. If I am wrong, I'll have hope restored in the system at least in this case.

You're not making sense. You stated that there is value in diversity and I said no one has argued otherwise. So your replay above makes no sense in that context.

Well, it is the difference between facts or accusation. I'd expect the truth to come out as things proceed. There is an obvious discrepancy between the judgment and countersuit. The difference is certainly playing out in conversation. We are getting contrary information.

That's a ridiculous argument. If I speed through school zones for years and when I get caught I say to the officer "I've been doing this for years", what do you think his response will be?

Well, again, it has to do with the actual between the ruling and the countersuit. One of them, we'd think is correct.

How does one "act like" God doesn't exist?

In a similar fashion that someone knows who Christians are, I've known which teachers have not been. You too?

By the decision of the school district and every court that has heard the case.


By who?

The citations you are pulling from would be helpful, I'd think. It potentially could put the concerns of this thread to rest. The only thing I've heard are from the four links I've given. I've really not seen the information you've given in just this post. If true, as I've said, I'd be on page concerning it. It would cross the line, clearly, for proselytizing. While I believe a person, even in government capacity can exercise their faith and that it is good for students to see and reflect upon values connected with such, I also am against proselytizing acts.

Are you not aware that this has been heard in court and every court that has heard it has ruled in favor of the school district? A counter suit won't overturn those rulings.

You are correct. Citation? I've looked for them, have not seen them in several searches.

But earlier you explained how you were able to teach without ever making a deliberate public display of your faith to your students.

"Deliberate" is important for your meaning. I am a deliberate Christian, but don't you mean something different than 'deliberate' here?

Again, public employees do not have absolute universal rights to practice religion while at work.

Can you explain that further? What is the 'rule of thumb?'

I can't seem to find it. Do you have a link?

The three links (if memory serves) from the post just prior.

I don't subscribe to the simplistic notion that school shootings have anything to do with school officials not being allowed to push religion on to students.

Again, it is binary vs whatever you have in mind. Conversely, I don't believe we do anything with null effect.

 

[The Barbarian]

If i stand on the corner of your street and pray to the Lord God of all, how have I imposed my beliefs on you?

You haven't. And why not? Because the government isn't imposing it. Why dont you just admit to being a whiny baby who wants a way to use govenment to push her religion on others?

You dont have to stop praying, agree with other religions or even look at someone praying. Just do it on your own, and stop wanting schools and other government institutions to do it for you.

 

[annabenedetti]

And, just like him, you aren't correct. I don't put out fires other people start and have no compulsion to do so. My 'silence' is no admission of guilt but a desire to have substantial discussion. Whims and accusatory are hardly my fascination or inclination. Simply saying 'no' is enough for me, even if it doesn't suffice for you or another. You can make up whatever is in your mind after that OR you could ask :think:

OR you could answer... :think:

Simply accusing isn't my bag (again, I expect[ed] better). :e4e: -Lon

Since it didn't go over well the first time, why are you repeating yourself and offering a second dose of the same pontification? Let me put it more bluntly. I'm not here to seek your approval. What I am is what you get. Feel free to stick to the subject matter instead and we'll both be happier.

 

[Jose Fly]

If such is the case, I'm in agreement with the district. Can you cite the information please? and thank you.

It's from the court ruling's Factual and Procedural Background: CLICK HERE (PDF).

 

[Lon]

OR you could answer... :think:

Again, attitude is half or more of the battle. Accusatory isn't my bag. As I said, I'd rather not put out fires of fears and suspicions. I'll stand by my principles. Simply saying "no" is enough against such (and I've repeatedly answered in the negative for anyone paying attention and against the assertion).

Since it didn't go over well the first time, why are you repeating yourself and offering a second dose of the same pontification? Let me put it more bluntly. I'm not here to seek your approval. What I am is what you get. Feel free to stick to the subject matter instead and we'll both be happier.

I'm not the one doing the repetition here. I've already answered 'no' clearly a number of times to the same.

 

[Lon]

It's from the court ruling's Factual and Procedural Background: CLICK HERE (PDF).

Thank you. It seems a fair ruling to me. Was this the last appeal or is it continuing?
Appreciate the information. The school is trying to not be seen as benefiting one religious group over another. I wonder if they ejected the Satanists from the grandstands by the same token. I am pleased the court reiterated and reinforced students have these rights.

So, while I think we share concerns, I'm not as stark on some displays of ideals and beliefs. I'd think the 'too far' in the OP title is still in contention as to which such entails between us, yet we share the greater concerns in regards to proselytizing and making some students feel excluded or pressured. -Lon

 

[Jose Fly]

Thank you. It seems a fair ruling to me.

Glad we agree.

Was this the last appeal or is it continuing?

As far as I can tell, the coach and his legal team are still weighing their options. They can request a re-hearing, a hearing from the full panel of the 9th Circuit, or appeal directly to the Supreme Court.

I wonder if they ejected the Satanists from the grandstands by the same token.

No, because the Satanists had done nothing wrong. Basically all they did was show up at a game.

I am pleased the court reiterated and reinforced students have these rights.

As am I.

So, while I think we share concerns, I'm not as stark on some displays of ideals and beliefs. I'd think the 'too far' in the OP title is still in contention as to which such entails between us, yet we share the greater concerns in regards to proselytizing and making some students feel excluded or pressured. -Lon

Good to hear.

 

[Angel4Truth]

You wanna stand on my street and pray to Jesus, Budda, Satan, whoever, I don't care. Where we have a problem is when you expect me to participate. In the space of a few sentences, we witnessed Lon try to introduce a tiny bit of his faith into my life and then grow it by a significant increment. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that he would do more of that if he had the chance.

You completely skirted the question, again, how does it force you to participate, if you see someone else praying, or hear them and they dont mention you at all or even ask you to do it?

 

[rexlunae]

You completely skirted the question, again, how does it force you to participate, if you see someone else praying, or hear them and they dont mention you at all or even ask you to do it?

I didn't skirt the question. The question was a straw man, and an insincere one at that. Lon claims that he absolutely needs state deism, despite the fact that he's made it this long without it, and then he immediately pivoted to something else. Before he even got the deism. I don't believe that what he wants is just a little religion around the edges. I think he wants me to take a back seat in my own country to the pious, and that he gave away his true motives.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I didn't skirt the question. The question was a straw man, and an insincere one at that. Lon claims that he absolutely needs state deism, despite the fact that he's made it this long without it, and then he immediately pivoted to something else. Before he even got the deism. I don't believe that what he wants is just a little religion around the edges. I think he wants me to take a back seat in my own country to the pious, and that he gave away his true motives.

And you still wont answer the question, YOU claimed you are forced, show me how you are forced to participate in prayer that you see.

We all know why you wont answer.

context:

Would you be willing to participate in a prayer that I designed, knowing that I do not share your religious perspective? Would you want your kids to be pressured to do so, and stigmatized if they don't?

You are only ok with this because you see yourselves as gaining the greatest advantage from it.

Who forces prayer just by having one?

Apples and apples please. And no, you arent forced to pray just because others are.

If a graduate gave thanks to allah, in their speech and offered the idol a prayer, it wouldnt bother me one bit, unless they were insisting i do it too, they have a right to their beliefs and as long as they aren't wielding a machete and shouting allahu akbar, whatever,

Atheists are some whining babies.